impossible, illogical or inconsistent since I don’t know how this
might be shown. I do insist, however, that this effort would be mis-
directed. Murder, rape, assault, theft, damage and trespass: each
of these should be determined as wrong quite independently of
any theory of self-ownership. Rights to life, bodily integrity,
and property do not need us to defend an antecedent right
of self-ownership.
An open-minded, reflective individual of the sort that is
attracted to philosophical speculation may well be stumped by the
question: Why is it wrong to murder or rape or steal? I think it is
unlikely that anyone such could find an answer that is both con-
vincing and recognizably deeper than the intuitions which prompt
their recognition of the moral seriousness of questions such as
these. This is blunt assertion. I may be wrong. No doubt questions
will multiply. Of one thing I am sure: no one should advance the
concept of self-ownership as somehow foundational. And this not
because novel doctrines can’t turn out to be true or illuminating.
Rather, doctrines of ownership are too familiar. They carry the
baggage of ancient debates concerning property rights – and such
doctrines as these have been put in question. It is a counsel of
despair to urge that one first settle philosophical questions con-
cerning ownership and then move on to derive a full account of
human rights from the conclusions reached.
As suggested above, the idea of self-ownership has shown itself
to be particularly attractive to liberals in the context of debates
about slavery. For if the self-ownership theory is recognized as a
self-evident truth, it challenges straight off the claim that one per-
son may be the property of another, that is, a slave. But this chal-
lenge may be met. Some might disagree with the claim that the
right to liberty is inalienable, imagining circumstances in which
one might literally trade risky or impecunious freedom for well-
fattened slavery. If the alternative is death (certainly) or great
shame (perhaps), slavery might look an attractive option. These
questions are deep and ancient (and modern) philosophers have
explored them.^28 At the heart of these discussions is the attempt to
characterize a minimal moral status attributable to all (or just
about all) human beings – the moral status, as mentioned above, of
the person. I claim that the thesis of self-ownership cannot
explicate this status. At best, it can summarize the results of
RIGHTS